+ Sponsors

June 2012

Wednesday, 06 June 2012

Pansonic will bolster sagging TV-set earnings by providing between 30 and 50 billion yen (approx. US$378–631 million) to Olympus, in return for shares issued in a private offering.

Some Olympus executives had wanted the company to remain independent, but that proved not to be feasible. Panasonic was evidently selected because Olympus is eager to partner with it on business and product initiatives, apart from the infusion of capital. Spurned suitors include both Sony and Fujifilm, both of which made offers to form business alliances with Olympus.

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Lord Mountbatten by Bern Schwartz. All photographs by Bernard Lee Schwartz, courtesy of and copyright by the National Portrait Gallery of Great Britain

ByCtein

Ken Tanaka's comment to my column of two weeks ago reminded me that I've never written about my experiences printing Bernard Lee Schwartz's portrait photographs. The Bernard Lee Schwartz Foundation, guided by his widow Ronny Schwartz, has been my largest and oldest printing client; we have a relationship that now goes back 30 years. Sadly, I never met Bern; the relationship started four years after his death.

Bern's work is notable in a couple of respects. Not because he's the greatest portrait photographer who ever lived, although he's head and shoulders above most of us.

What's notable is that he exhibited that level of proficiency in a mere four years of dedicated work: portrait photography was his second career. The Schwartz family owns Sherman-Clay (the piano company). Bern died an untimely death, cutting his photographic career short. It's unusual to establish a major body of work in such a short time.

(Bern is not the only photographer to make his mark after "retirement." Bob Cameron, the author of Above San Francisco and a whole series of follow-up books, did all of that work after retiring from the marketing and import business. It's nice to know you can establish your place in the photographic world starting at the point that many people would consider hanging up their working shoes.)

The second thing that makes Bern's work notable was his access; through a combination of friendships, networking, and word-of-mouth, he had the opportunity to photograph an extraordinary array of famous people, from important artists and authors to heads of state. A massive portfolio of decent-to-brilliant portraits of A-list people is nothing to be sneezed at.

Ronny crossed my path in 1982. She'd been unhappy with the quality of the chromogenic prints of Bern's work and was looking for something better. She'd had a dye transfer done of this famous portrait of Lord Mountbatten (if it looks familiar, perhaps it's because it was used on a British stamp) but wasn't satisfied with the results. She contacted Frank McLaughlin, the dye transfer guru at Eastman Kodak, who told her, "There's this guy in California you should try out; if he can't make a print that'll make you happy, there probably isn't anybody who can."

She did. I printed that Mountbatten photograph for her, as a test of my abilities. She was happy. She said she had another two or three dozen negatives she'd like to have printed. Well, that was just the first year or so. She kept selecting more portraits that she wanted done up properly as dye transfers. I ended up printing dyes for her for a good decade or longer. When all was said and done, I'm sure I did more than 150, maybe even 200.

Ronny proved great to work with. She was just as professional as I am, and she appreciated artistic effort as much as I do. Furthermore, she had at least as good an eye for a good print. Sometimes better. She pushed me, and she never accepted a print that she didn't think couldn't be improved upon. I've never worked with another client as fussy as she. I love it.

Printing for Ronny altered my life in other ways. It not only got me out of debt, but when my landlord decided to sell my residence and I had to find new living quarters, Ronny advanced me enough money on future work to allow me to buy a house.

After nearly a decade the flow of new negatives petered out. It wasn't that Ronny had become dissatisfied with my efforts or that there weren't many more portraits deserving of fine printing. I think she simply got burned out. She was the force that turned rolls of exposures into a solid body of work. She'd sort through hundreds of individual frames of film to find the one that she thought best embodied a subject (she knew the subjects as well as Bern did and was usually there for the photography). She figured out the crop that was the most effective composition and sometimes even made recommendations on how it should be printed. She became the primary artistic force after Bern's death (I have a personal suspicion she was a major one before that; I consider this work to be jointly hers and Bern's, no matter who pushed the shutter button). She may very well have put in more time over that decade editing and selecting the photographs as I spent printing them.

My relationship with the BLS Foundation continued at a low key level for another dozen years. I'd hear from them a couple of times a year, maybe. Then they developed a series of new initiatives to distribute his work. As president of the Foundation, their son Michael had the primary duties. (Ronny is alive and well and active; she's just got other things to do with her life. She is still the final arbiter of whether a print looks right or not when Michael and I are uncertain.) At first it was several dozen more dye transfer prints. Then, starting five or six years back, we began to move into digital.

It began with the portrait of Ann Jenner shown below, the negative for which was in such poor shape that I couldn't pull a decent print in the darkroom. I suggested we try a digital print, combining my skills both as a restoration expert and a fine digital printer.

This is the best dye transfer that I could make from the negative.

This is my digital print from the same negative.

The results were wonderful. We started doing more and more work as digital prints, and that finally took over from dye transfer entirely. All of us involved are firmly of the opinion that Bern would have just loved this new technology; we feel like we're getting results that are so much closer to what he must've been after when he pressed the shutter.

So, the relationship continues. One client shaped my career as a custom dye and digital printer, through the remarkable support of Ronny and Michael. Lemme tell ya, every artisan should be so lucky as to have clients like that.

Ctein

NOTE: The BLS Foundation does not sell prints. Prints of works that are now owned by the National Portrait Gallery of Great Britain can be ordered through their website.

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Ken Tanaka: "What a personal coincidence you should mention Sherman-Clay! While visiting San Francisco in April I snapped this huge neon sign, certainly somewhat of a relic, while strolling to dinner one evening.

"What a terrific story, Ctein. Of course Bern Schwartz's story is remarkable. Not only did he have talent as a photo portraitist (I understand he had some rather exceptional instruction) but he was able to gain access to so many celebrities. How'd he do that?

"But the story of your 30-year relationship with Schwartz's work and family is equally remarkable. Time and again I encounter stories in the arts world where one person—a teacher, a collector, a gallery owner, a museum curator—made a profound difference in the trajectory of an artist's life. I know there is a guiding moral to this story for young artists and craftspeople...but I'm not sure what it is.

"Thanks very much for sharing this personal story with us, Ctein."

Featured Comment by Paddy C.: "For me, Ctein, one of you most interesting recent articles. Thanks for sharing. And that restoration job on the Jenner portrait looks amazing."

PopPhoto.com is reporting that specific guidelines for amateur photographers at the London Games have been announced. The maximum permissable lens length is 30 cm (about 11.8 inches), and "large cameras," tripods, and monopods won't be permitted (along with golf umbrellas, clothing emblazened with political statements, and—thank you, Olympic Police—vuvuzelas).

Carl Zeiss made its first 180mm 35mm lens, the once famous and technologically-advanced-for-its-day "Olympia Sonnar," just in time for the 1936 Games. I wonder if one of the Micro 4/3 or mirrorless manufacturers will put out the longest possible telephoto lens with a length just under 11.8 inches in time for these Olympics?

Mike(Thanks to Richard Tugwell)

P.S. There was a gunstock-mounted version of the Olympia Sonnar. I doubt that would go over today.

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Phil Maus: "Being the stealthy photog that I am, I'm gonna bring my handheld 8x10 (oops, this is the UK, I mean 10-8) zone plate/pinhole box camera. Technically it is a 'large camera,' but I'm betting I won't be called out at the gate. It's hard enough convincing anyone that this is indeed a 'camera' at all, let alone the officials monitoring such things.... 'So that's your lunchbox then?' I'll have my special, ƒ/11 'Sports & Action' pinhole mounted! I live to flout the rules! Go USA!!!"

Featured Comment by RobG: "Olympics. Meh. Personally, I'm not going to pay any attention to any of it. Londonites, you have my deepeset sympathies. I'll spend every spare moment on the beach, photographing the local kiteboarders instead. I recommend that all of you stay away in droves, and go bother a badger or two.

Tuesday, 05 June 2012

When I read Mike's note a few posts back about how he was still not getting the Olympus OM-D E-M5 he'd pre-ordered, I emailed him and offered to write about my own first impressions of the camera, since I'd gotten mine just the day before.

I didn't even have to pre-order. I just walked into my local Henry's and asked to look at one. As it turned out, they didn't have one in stock, but further checking revealed they'd be getting three the very next day. Did I want them to hold one for me? Yes.

Like many of you, I'd been following the camera rumours and reviews for many months before deciding which camera I'd spring for next. Of course it's not like I really needed a new camera. My Nikon D7000 and Sony NEX-3 were still doing fine. So, was I looking for something bigger and better like the Nikon D800, Canon 5D Mark III, or Pentax 645D? While that would be nice to have as well, the idea of a better smaller camera seemed a more compelling priority. Not to mention less expensive.

Now, the NEX-3 is pretty good—I like the tilt screen and big sensor, the light weight and small size. But there is no eye-level finder, and I'm not comfortable taking it past ISO 1600. Also, there is not much to chose from in the way of lenses that aren't huge relative to the camera. In comparison, the OM-D is actually a bit heavier, and, thanks to the faux pentaprism on top, a little bigger as well. But it still fits easily into the laptop pocket of my backpack, which is where I'd been carrying the NEX.

The last two times I bought new cameras they sat around for a few months before I started using them. Not so with the Olympus OM-D. I started using the OM-D the very same day I bought it, although it was late by the time I stepped out under the streetlights...

Typical front yard in my neighbourhood

...Which is where I discovered the first minor annoyance with this otherwise enjoyable camera. While using the rear tilt-screen finder to frame my night shots, I found that that finder would periodically black out. Eventually I figured that it must be because it was so dark out, the camera assumed I had put the eye-level finder to my eye.

The built-in eye-level finder of course is one big new thing that differentiates the OM-D from previous Olympus Micro 4/3 cameras. The OM-D's eye level finder refreshes much faster than the Panasonic add-on finder for the GX1, and it's less position-sensitive than the admittedly more hi-res finder on the NEX-7. What I mean is, particularly if you're an eyeglass wearer, the position of your eye relative to the finder is less critical on the OM-D. That's a good thing. For me, the Olympus finder is detailed enough, colour-accurate enough, and refreshes quickly enough. When I pan the camera, the finder image holds together well enough to be useful for following action. Most of these are not things I could have said about the previous generation of EVF finders.

Workflow-wise there are trade-offs with an EVF. You get to see the picture you took immediately in the finder, for an adjustable length of time. Which is better than checking it on the back of the camera, because you're not troubled with ambient light. But checking every picture after you take it does compromise your ability to take follow-up pictures quickly. No doubt that post-view could be turned off if you wanted.

Autofocus on the OM-D seems to involve almost no perceptible delay in most situations, although it was challenged somewhat outdoors at night. But in normal picture-taking it seemed as fast or faster than my D7000, with the added bonus of face detection. In the 500 or so pictures I've shot I never felt I had to manually choose the focus point. Not that the camera always chose the right point, mind you, when there were faces at different distances.

My most intensive test shoot with the camera was at a farmers' market last Saturday morning. I often shoot there with my Nikon, and it was great to be able to get a higher point of view with the OM-D just by tilting the screen and holding the camera up over my head—which is how I took the shot at the top of this post. With a regular SLR I'd have needed to stand on a chair to do that. Looking at the pictures afterwards in Aperture, I don't notice any camera shake in spite of shutter speeds in the realm of 1/40th. Thank you, in-body image stabilization.

At one point on Saturday I showed the camera to a friend. He noticed that it was warm. From the heat of processing all those pictures I'm sure. Still, it wasn't anywhere near uncomfortably hot to hold. I had shot maybe 250 pictures within the space of an hour or so. Which brings me to another downside of this camera—battery life. I managed to drain the battery taking some 400 pictures in the course of two or three hours. Of course it wasn't fully charged when I started, so I don't really have an accurate fix on how many shots it's good for. But with my Nikon I can go for weeks without charging the battery and have never run it dry. I think for traveling especially, an extra battery or two would be important.

I like the shutter sound. It's a nice quiet thunk that will go unnoticed in most situations. Exposure compensation is easy, using a wheel just below the shutter release. Auto ISO seems limited to the 200 to 1600 range which works well for all but fairly dark situations. I haven't found it easy to go into the menus to crank up the ISO beyond that, but that'll improve with practice. If you're using the eye-level finder you can set the rear display as a menu screen to choose one of several parameters to adjust in a fairly direct way. ISO is one of these.

One second, handheld, resting elbows on armrests of a chair—my 100-year-old father, shot in available darkness, ISO 1600.

The 12–50mm kit lens option was a factor in helping me choose this camera. I like being able to go as wide as 24mm equivalent (on a full frame 35mm camera) and 100mm (equivalent) is enough telephoto for me. On my Nikon DSLR I use the 16–85mm zoom to cover a similar range. (Thanks to Sony for pioneering that particular zoom range on their R1 and again for their Alpha DSLRs a few years later.) Of course the Olympus lens is rather slowish (ƒ/6.3) at the tele end. Interestingly, the lens doesn't change length while zooming, and can be zoomed either manually or with a servo motor (mainly good for video). The manual zoom feel is not the greatest, but that's a minor quibble about an otherwise sharp and inexpensive lens.

All in all the OM-D is a fun camera to use. It has just about all the features you'd want in an everyday carry around camera, aside from maybe a Leica M style range/viewfinder. But with its tilt screen, in-camera stabilization, built-in eye level finder, state of the art high ISO performance, vast range of Micro 4/3 lens options, retro styling and ergonomic functionality, it's easily worth the $1,000 price to me.

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Dennis A. Mook: "A stunningly sharp image of a whitetail deer I made this week that matches anything I have done with my 'full frame' DSLR. This was a 'grab shot' from the driver's seat in my car. My wife and I were on Skyline Drive in Virginia's Blue Ridge mountains when the deer appeared at the edge of the woods. I slowed, stopped, picked up the OM-D with the Panny 45–200mm set on aperture preferred at ƒ/5.6, and made the photo. ISO was 200 and I believe the shutter speed turned out to be 1/640. No exposure compensation used. Color, white balance, contrast, saturation, etc. are right out of the camera. I used some export sharpening (normal setting for screen viewing) in Lightroom. Other than that, the OMD and lens performed well. I'm a happy guy."

Just FYI, the great Memory Card Wars are ongoing—B&H has some spectacular savings on many of the better Sandisk cards, just for today only. You really ought to take advantage of the "wars" if you're needing to buy a few of these cards anyway. Plus, you assist TOP in our craven urging to generate a few shekels to keep the lights on, thus killing two birds, so to speak, with one card. I'm just sayin'.

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Monday, 04 June 2012

Veteran French photographer, photojournalist, and documentary filmmaker Raymond Depardon used three cameras to shoot the official portrait of new French President François Hollande. The portrait that was selected was shot with Raymond's vintage 1962 Rolleiflex, which he's seen using here.

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Edward Taylor: "I like the photo just fine, but there seems to be nothing extraordinary about it. Is's just a photo. The previous portraits of previous presidents are not anything special either. I don't think the intent is to make a work of art. These are documentary portraits with the purpose of looking dignified, well dressed, respectable, patriotic, etc.

"The real danger here is having a 'green screen' look. This portrait does look green screened because of the lighting difference between the subject and the background. Diffusers and reflectors, as well as flashes or artificial lighting can create a disconnect between the subject and the background that makes the viewer wonder if the subject was really there at all.

"I'm not sure Karsh would be happy with these results."

Featured Comment by Bill Bresler: "You've all missed the real significance of these photos. The last photo I saw of Depardon was probably made in the late 1970s. He looked like a skinny, depressed little French guy. Now he looks like me!"

Featured Comment by ankylosaurus: "Nobody cares how hard you tried and what equipment you used—well in this particular case this isn't true....

"I happen to live in France and the media here never omits the fact that the image is taken by a 50 year old camera.

"Depardon explained that he only had the time to take 12 images with the Rollei before the president vaporized...his assistant didn't have time to load another roll. So he had to make do with what he had.

"To me the president looks rather uncomfortable and tensed. It's like somebody just shouted:

"—Hey Fraçois, You have a wasp under your collar. Whatever you do, don't move because he sure do look angry....

"But I guess that the vintage camera more than compensates for the wasp look...."

Mike replies:That's interesting that Raymond only got one roll in, because that was exactly my reading of the picture when I first saw it—that the subject didn't have sufficient opportunity to relax and the photographer didn't have enough time to shoot as much as he needed.

I used to demand of my subjects that they not only give me an hour of their time at a minimum, but that they not schedule anything else for at least two hours after our session ended—and preferably nothing else for the remainder of the day. My feeling was that the pressure of "I've got somewhere to go" would show up in the picture otherwise.

Of course one does not have the luxury to make such demands with the President of France!

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

For Sale: One gently used, low-mileage Mercedes-Benz with an outstanding service history. Available for test drive in Bumf---, Wisconsin.

It's a silver 2007 C280 4matic (i.e., all-wheel drive) with most of the trimmings, including sunroof and heated seats. Just over 38,000 miles. Clean title. No dents or dings. Dealer serviced, on schedule, for its entire life. Good car, runs great, in excellent condition, with no issues. The only non-standard service it's ever needed over the 22,000 miles I've driven it was an alignment. Tires still have life left. Asking $19,900, but will knock off an extra $500 for a TOP reader. I will have it detailed before sale.

Reason for selling......It's been replaced. I took delivery of a new TOPmobile* yesterday. It's a base Toyota Rav4 V6 4WD, in my fourth choice of color (you know what they say: oh well). It is, among other things:

The first new car I've bought in more than 15 years

The first SUV I've ever driven, much less owned

The largest vehicle I've ever owned

Only the second vehicle with an automatic transmission I've ever owned

The most expensive vehicle I've ever bought in my life

The reason for the purchase is as utilitarian as the vehicle. I am, first of all, greatly looking forward to being able to transport 32-gallon trash cans to the town dump. Secondly, I need to raise my credit score (I almost never borrow money, and have very little credit history), and Toyota was offering a 0% interest deal. This allows me to "get credit" for borrowing money without paying for the privilege.

It's also set me upon new waters in another way: as you may have gleaned from the above, I'm selling my old car privately. Which will be a first for me. Planning to list it on eBay, AutoTrader, and Craigslist. Any veterans of selling automobiles privately have any tips?

Mike

*It's a good thing "TOPMOBILE" won't fit on a custom license plate. I don't need to be any more eccentric than I already am.

"Open Mike" is a series of off-topic posts by Yr. Hmbl. Ed. that appear on TOP only, but not always, on Sundays.

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright notice used to be mandatory—you lost your copyright if you published your work without it. For works first published on or after March 1, 1989, it's optional, but it's still a good idea, because it prevents infringers from using the "innocent infringer" defense—that is, whoever rips you off can't say they didn't know. Judgments against innocent infringers (and thus, the judgment you are awarded) are often reduced by the courts.

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Saturday, 02 June 2012

"As a photojournalist, what role did I have in this tragedy, and what is it now, in the aftermath?"

—Lauren Pond

Lauren Pond is a Washington, D.C. photojournalist who was engaged in a long-term project photographing a Pentecostal snake-handling sect. Her main subject in the project was a generous and forthright pastor of the The House of the Lord Jesus, Mack Wolford, whom she had befriended.

After she'd worked on the project on and off for more than a year, at an "evangelistic hootenanny of Christian praise and worship" at a Wildlife Area in the mountains 80 miles west of Bluefield, West Virginia, her friend Pastor Wolford was bitten by a snake. After many hours of suffering, he died a painful death—in the sight of her camera.

What are snake-handlers? Quoting an earlier Washington Post article by Julia Duin:

Mark Randall "Mack" Wolford was known all over Appalachia as a daring man of conviction. He believed that the Bible mandates that Christians handle serpents to test their faith in God—and that, if they are bitten, they trust in God alone to heal them.

He and other adherents cited Mark 16:17-18 as the reason for their practice: "And these signs will follow those who believe: in My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover."

Pastor Wolford, who had been generous enough to have Lauren Pond as an overnight guest in his family's home, was bitten on the thigh by one of his eight snakes, a highly venomous yellow timber rattlesnake he had owned and used for Christian worship services for many years.

For hours, Pond stood vigil over, and documented, the pastor's drawn-out, agonizing death. Like the family members and co-religionists present, she respected Mack Wolford's wishes, and did not call paramedics.

When the pastor finally gave his permission to summon help, it was too late.

The scene has been playing over and over in my head since then, and the questions are weighing on me: As a photojournalist, what role did I have in this tragedy, and what is it now, in the aftermath? Was it right for me to remain in the background taking pictures, as I did, and not seek medical attention for the dying pastor, whose beliefs forbade it? Or should I have intervened and called paramedics earlier, which would have undermined Mack's wishes?

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Michael Sebastian: "Paramedics won't treat a competent person against his wishes. Similarly, as an anesthesiologist, I regularly encounter Jehovah's Witnesses, who refuse most transfusions. In deciding whether to accept them as patients, I have to be willing to let them bleed to death rather than commit battery by subjecting them to treatment while unconscious that they had refused when competent to do so.

"Not sure what the hand-wringing is all about here. For people of faith, there are things worse than dying. Wouldn't be my choice, but I'm not willing to compel a competent adult otherwise."

Mike replies:I find it a curious conundrum. Because, technically, he's not making the choice to die: he's making the choice to let god save him, which he believes is what's going to happen. My belief, were I in Lauren's place, would be that god is not going to save him, because god is imaginary; so if I have a duty to try to render lifesaving help where needed, then I would have a duty to render assistance to him.

So in order to respect his beliefs in this situation, by standing off and not attempting to save his life, I am acknowledging that our beliefs are equivalent—i.e., I'm admitting the possibility that his belief might be correct and mine might be false.

Ironically, what gives this argument its force to me is when I imagine our respective positions reversed. That is, if I were bitten by a snake, his belief might be that no action need be taken because god would step in to save me; but in that case, I would very much want him to defer to my belief, and call the paramedics.

So in letting him die I am scrupulously "doing unto others what I would have others do unto me." I am deferring to his belief because that is exactly what I would want him to do for me. Right?

Featured Comment by Steve Jacob: "Is this a photojournalism issue or a human one? In the end we all have to live with our choices. Using our profession as a cover is beside the point."

Featured Comment by David Johnson: "Years ago, I worked as a photojournalist for the Southwest Times Record in Fort Smith, Arkansas. I was given the privilege to be the first photojournalist to be granted unescorted, unlimited access to Arkansas' maximum security prison in Pine Bluff. While there, I had access to all areas of the prison, and found it remarkable how the inmates implicitly trusted me. Evidence of this included prisoners who showed me deadly homemade weapons, including knives.

"When the photo essay was published, the prison warden called our editor-in-chief. He was rightfully concerned about the presence of weapons in the prison population, and asked that I give him information about where I had seen those weapons. I respectfully declined.

"Here's why: For journalists, trust is the ultimate precious commodity. Without trust, there is no access. Without access, there is no story.

"Suppose, when I arrived at the prison, I announced to the prisoners that, anything I saw, any information I gathered, would be turned over to the prison warden. Do you think, knowing this, that any of the prisoners would have shown me their weapons, drugs, etc? The kind of access needed to tell the in-depth story of life in that prison would have been unattainable.

"Certainly, if I had told the warden where I saw weapons, it is possible that people might have been saved from injury or death. The irony is, if I had not been a trusted party, I would have never seen those weapons to begin with.

"In the same way, if Ms. Pond had announced up front that, if the pastor were bitten, she would insist on intervening medically, she would have never been given access to do this story.

"As journalists, we must look not only look at the situation in which we are involved, we must also look at the effect of our decisions on journalism as a whole. If we are given access to a circumstance because of trust, and then we break that trust, we have eroded the trust of all journalists, eroding the collective access we have to essential information."

Mike replies:Your second-to-last paragraph is certainly the case here: most snake-handlers are notoriously reticent to journalists. One thing that made Mack Wolford exceptional was that he was willing to open up to a reporter.

Featured Comment by Rob: "I am a retired physician who has dealt with a great many end-of-life situations. In medical practice, one of the core principles is that of patient autonomy, which asserts that a mentally competent adult patient holds the exclusive right to accept or reject medical treatment, even if rejecting it would result in death. This right cannot be overriden by well-meaning family members, friends or caregivers. Hence, from a medicolegal standpoint, there would have been no basis for forcing the pastor to receive any form of assistance which he clearly rejected. That is my opinion based on over 30 years of practice as a critical care specialist.

"As a human being, not a physician, I must say that I do not hold religious faith in the high esteem that many others do. Pastor Wolford and his flock may have believed that his death was the will of God, but I am not impressed by the evidence. He died in faith, but also because of faith. It was a tragedy that was completely avoidable."

Featured Comment by Bernd Reinhardt: "I used to shoot documentaries and have been in many situations of moral ambiguity before. I believe that her conscience is troubled not because she respected his wishes not to call an ambulance earlier, but because she knows that when you think something is not right for you, that is the time to put down the camera and walk away. Do I feel like this is something that has to be photographed for the greater good or am I just exploiting the moment, this is the tough question you have to answer for yourself."

Featured Comment by Charles M. Haskell M.D.: "I'm a retired medical oncologist and bioethicist. In my teaching I advised medical students to follow the 'Platinum Rule.' Namely, 'Do unto others, as they would have you do unto them.' It places patient autonomy at the center of the ethical argument. It is far more useful than the 'Golden Rule,' which suffers from the hubris of self-importance in decision-making."

All over the American Midwest, traditional barns are disappearing at a furious pace. The New York Times reported this morning that in the State of Iowa alone, 1,000 old barns are demolished every year.

Modern steel barns are efficient and inexpensive, but are somewhat lacking in charm compared to traditional forms.

So you know that old barn you've been meaning to take a few pictures of, next time you pass by? Don't wait too long.

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Tom Robbins: "You're right about not waiting too long, the old relics are often here today and gone tomorrow things. This old steel barn was just a pile of scrap two weeks after I took its picture."

Rusty Barn, DeKalb County, Illinois. Photo by Tom Robbins.

Featured Comment by Maggie Osterberg: "Wow, when I was at MCAD (Minneapolis College of Art and Design), back in the 1980s, the general consensus of what was the ultimate cliché in photography was a black-and-white photograph of a dilapidated barn. I guess it's like Belloc said to Indy in Raiders Of The Lost Ark, 'Bury it in the sand for 1,000 years and it becomes priceless.'"

Mike replies:I have to confess that barns are part of that large class of things I enjoy looking at but almost never photograph. The exception was a barn I found years ago with a giant mural of Raphael's painting of Baldassare Castiglione on one end of it. Weird. But I didn't take a good picture of it—maybe I just didn't have enough practice photographing barns.

Featured Comment by Paul Butzi: "I'm foursquare behind the idea of photographing barns before they are destroyed, and I agree that old style barns are a vanishing part of the U.S. landscape.

"Tip #1: Please, folks, respect private property laws and don't trespass when you do it. Those of us who photograph in rural areas already have a problem because of photographers whose bad behavior has made farmers, ranchers, and other rural residents hate all photographers.

"And if you haven't read the codes/statutes regarding trespass in the jurisdiction where you're photographing, I assure you you don't actually know what the rules are. So do a little research and find out, first. It's not that much work, and you'll make friends instead of enemies.

"Tip #2: Take a small portfolio with you, with some of your photographs in it. That way, when the farmer asks why you want to make a photograph of his (whatever), you can show him photos. Trust me, the farmer will get it.

"Tip #3: While you're talking with the person who comes out to ask you what the hell you're doing, don't make the mistake of assuming that you're the smartest/most artistic/most articulate/best-educated person in the conversation. I once got an insightful evisceration of my portfolio from a farm owner who went through the portfolio while standing in dirty overalls and fouled muck boots and balancing the portfolio on a fence post. She then gave me great advice on other places to photograph. And she recognized me and asked about my work when I ran into her at a show of her wonderful paintings at a gallery about six months later."

Featured Comment by Peter Marquis-Kyle: "This prompts me to mention one of my favourite photography books. It's by John Szarkowski (yes, he was a photographer as well as a curator and critic), called Mr. Bristol's Barn: With Excerpts from Mr. Blinn's Diary (New York: Abrams, 1997). The photographs are black and white, calm and nicely lit, and illuminated by Szarkowski's thoughtful essay about the pattern of history and quotes from a nineteenth century farmer's diary. There are so many layers of meaning here that it is a very satisfying piece of work."

Friday, 01 June 2012

"When the financial crisis hit Greece, Christos Sarris put aside his cameras to volunteer for an organisation giving assistance to some of poorest families in Athens. His interviews and observations convey the plight of a once proud community while also revealing the frightening despair of the nation...."

Read more about Christos' project at foto8. Unfortunately the pictures are somewhat buried in the haphazardly made video, but this is the first 'intimate' view of the Greek people I've seen after months of reading with interest about the wider political and economic crisis.

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

As happened with Bruce Gilden, as happens when we run into copyright issues, there were a few commenters the other day who objected to the ethics of John Slaytor's train pictures—he took high-speed pictures from the outside of people in passing trains who were unaware they were being photographed by him. Brilliant idea, I thought, but some others were uncomfortable with it.

Let me paraphrase myself to characterize some of the typical reactions in these cases (I was writing about copyright, but it applies to most ethical issues that affect photography):

There are a couple of main streams: 1. People don't understand the law. 2. People think the law should be different. 3. People think each case should be up to them to decide, based on what seems reasonable to them in the particular instance. 4. People don't even grasp the basic facts of the case under discussion, but are willing to pop the cork on some bottled diatribe they've got inside them that's been waiting for any old excuse to bubble over.

Um...sorry. Just the first three.

I was suggesting then that it doesn't matter how you feel about an issue, it matters what the law allows and doesn't allow.

And that's true. But here I'd like to suggest the opposite: that your feelings about the appropriateness of photography in differing situations is something you should pay attention to and respect. If you feel squeamish or uncomfortable about the implications of any kind of practice of photograhy, then you probably shouldn't do it. Your personal feelings don't necessarily prove that there's anything wrong with it, or that you get the right to dictate to others whose lawful behavior you don't agree with (although of course it's always an option to visit them with your disapproval); but it's probably a good clue as to how you ought to be working.

We all have different feelings about the exploitation of others and about correct and proper behavior. It's perfectly legal in the U.S. to take pictures of complete strangers without their consent and then exhibit and sell the photographs, as long as various restrictions aren't broken and certain uses aren't breached. Put simply, it's part of free speech. And it's true that we don't get to dictate to other photographers how they're allowed to work. But your own ethical feelings, I would argue, are an indivisible part of your own art or practice of photography—or should be. How we approach those feelings is part of how we approach the world and our own lives within it, and, in that sense, observing our own moral and ethical feelings are an important aspect of what we're doing, worthy of respecting. Maybe you want to be more fastidious than the law demands; maybe politeness is as important to you as lawfulness. So very well then.

Such considerations are not limited to the photography of people. Wildlife and plant life can potentially be included. There was a case a number of years ago concerning a landscape photographer who chopped down small trees that were blocking the view of his camera, and people had feelings about the ethics of that practice, too.

Your own ethics can go over and above the law, which is only a sort of practical baseline (practical, since violating it can incur penalties). For each of us, how far we'll go is a personal matter, and for each of us I think it's worth thinking about and formulating our own ethics.

Although not the topic of this discussion, it's worth mentioning that ethics are in part a public relations issue, too: the feelings of other people in public might possibly have an impact on you, and they (the public) also might be ignorant of the law. We've pointed out many times that not even all law enforcement officials are clear about what is and is not lawful when it comes to photography, and the general public is much worse. (Some photographers go so far as to carry Bert Krages' "The Photographer's Right" flyer to inform police on the spot of the law.) But there we're talking about expedients, not about formulating and following your own ethics for sound ethical reasons.

Going back to the specifics of what's allowed and not allowed according to the law, it's worth educating yourself, especially if you suspect you're on shaky ground and might need to defend your actions. From that earlier post again:

I'd like to suggest again a few books that we've recommended in the past—Photographer's Legal Guide by Carolyn E. Wright, and Bert Krages' Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images (note the lack of international links: although copyright law is international to a considerable extent, Carolyn and Bert are both U.S. attorneys writing for a U.S. audience. If you live somewhere else, you should find yourself a good resource that fully reflects local expertise and applicable laws.)

I remember finding Bert's book a little more informative, but that might be because it contained more stuff that was new to me at the time. Carolyn, of course, is the author of the Photo Attorney blog, a leading blog for legal issues affecting photographers.

Knowing the law is a good basis for proceeding, but it's worth cautioning that in some instances, law enforcement is going to make it up as they go along. There was a case locally where a man was taking pictures of swimmers at a public swimming pool from a car parked a considerable distance away. When questioned, he admitted to the police that he used the pictures for sexual gratification. As far as I could discern from the newspaper (and I don't think I've mentioned yet that I'm not a lawyer), what he was doing was not actually illegal, merely distasteful (he was on public property, the swimmers did not have an expectation of privacy, he was not trafficking in the pictures); but he was arrested and thrown in jail all the same, his camera confiscated, and so forth, to universal public approval. So, as always, beware—the law, too, like our personal feelings, can sometimes be extemporaneous.

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured [partial] Comment by Tim Auger: "One of the problems in this intolerant and litigious age is that people do not distinguish between the ethical and the legal. You do not have the automatic right to impose your personal ethical code on others with the force of law. You have to accept that others may have an ethical code different from yours. Many people find that difficult. That's why there are so many calls to ban things."

Featured Comment by Joe Kashi: "TOP readers should be alert to other possible legal problems with street and public place photography.

"Depending upon the situation and the law of any particular state, a person that's photographed may well have some private rights that non-lawyers tend to overlook in their stress upon 'First Amendment rights.' Private rights claims can cause potentially serious legal difficulties for photographers.

"We should remember that other persons have rights to their personal sense of dignity and privacy and that other people also cherish their 'rights.' Photographers are not the only people with 'rights.'

"The law varies from state to state and situation to situation, so one can't give any legal advice in posted general comments, only a general heads-up to be alert to some potential problem areas. While it is generally true that one has certain general rights to photograph in public places where there is no expectation of privacy, that's the beginning, not the end, of the story.

"Generally, First Amendment rights only pertain to government action, and less so to private civil actions against the photographer in the event that a private person decides to sue the photographer because they're unhappy about their depiction or a perceived invasion of a personal right.

"Without an unrestricted release from the subject, fair use of street and public place photographs usually extends only to non-commercial use such as in exhibitions and journalism. If there is any commercialization of the image, then the private compensation rights of the person(s) photographed likely arise, to the detriment and expense of the photographer.

"There are other potential problem areas, and these arise from tort law. An unhappy subject may be able to sue the photographer for unfair use, invasion of privacy, holding a person up to ridicule, or a perceived unfair or distorted depiction of them. First Amendment 'rights' usually don't protect a photographer against claims like that. Even if such claims are later dismissed by the court or by a jury, defending against them is expensive, time-consuming, and nerve-wracking.

"Again, private legal remedies vary greatly from state to state, and upon how a jury or judge reacts to a specific photo, so no one can give any legal advice in comments like these except that everyone should be alert of potential private rights. In a very real sense, the best guide is to recognize that others have personal rights to dignity and privacy that everyone, including photographers, are expected to respect."

Featured Comment by Maris Rusis: "Privacy? In public I don't expect it and don't want it. Anyone can take my picture. I think it a reasonable bargain in a liberal society that people can move about freely but the price for this freedom is the presumption of good behaviour. Should individuals be witnessed and recorded doing shameful or repugnant things then that is to their own account and not a slur against the witness. My experience with street photography suggests that what people really want is not privacy at all but rather assured anonymity."

Shigetaka Komori (right), President and Chief Executive Officer of Fujifilm, in a frank and revealing interview in the German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (a.k.a. the FAZ), confirmed that Fuji considered buying Leica when it was for sale; however, that would have resulted in putting the guts of Fuji cameras into Leica shells, so he thinks it was an honest decision not to go in that direction.

He also confirmed that Fujifilm made an offer to purchase or partner with Olympus in the wake of the latter company's recent difficulties, but it appears that Olympus prefers to remain independent. He spoke about how the high yen is making it difficult for export-oriented Japanese companies such as Sony, Matsushita and Olympus (and by extension, his own company). He said Fujifilm would have found it easier to buy Olympus if it had not been a publicly traded company with two large Tokyo banks behind it (Tokyo Mitsubishi and Mitsui Sumitomo). Had Olympus been delisted from the stock exchange, things might also have gone differently.

Fujifilm has had a run of great success in the camera market of late, with the X100, X10, and X-Pro1 all greatly exceeding expectations. Fujifilm is also expanding into cosmetics and pharmaceuticals.

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.